Send a Message
to justwatching

Comments

379

Joined

Jan 9, 2006

justwatching Profile

Recent Posts

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

Sorry, I know there is more to copy over but my time here is up. I am involved in a very interesting social experiment taking place in the mountains of NC. I have little time near a computer when involved and speak about the Ramsey case to no one there. It's a different life. but I have enjoyed the visit and hope I gave some open-minded posters some food for thought. sorry for the typing, this is an old laptop here and sometimes I think the keyboard is haunted, it just works one minute, not the next. If the words appeared garbled, blame the keyboard. Caps off and on, crazy to use this. So I am off, enjoy reading - keep learning. The truth isn't so hard to find if you look for it.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #9)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

In contrast, Detective Smit opined that there were several factors that could have motivated an intruder to commit this horrific crime. First, defendants were prominent in the community and had thrown several large events at their home, thereby providing a large number of people the opportunity to learn the house's floor plan. Second, Mr. Ramsey received considerable attention due to the financial success of his company. In fact, news articles were published that detailed the company's financial success and mentioned Mr. Ramsey in great detail. (SMF ¶ 121 PSMF ¶ 121.) In the weeks leading up to the murder, Detective Smit notes that defendants had a large party at their home in which they entertained hundreds of people from their church. Also, Mr. Ramsey had spoken at his company's Christmas party and praised the employees for passing the one billion dollar mark in sales. (Smit Dep. at 148.) Third, Detective Smit states that JonBenet was a "pedophile's dream come true." (SMF ¶ 122; PSMF ¶ 122.) Jon-Benet received considerable public attention as "Little Miss Colorado" and through several beauty pageants in which she participated. (SMF ¶ 121; PSMF ¶ 121.) On December 6, 1996, three weeks before the murder, she was in the Lights of December Parade, an event thousands of people attended. (Smit. Dep. at 147.) In addition, on December 25, 1996, while playing at the home of a neighborhood friend, Jon-Benet told her friend's mother that "Santa Claus" was going to pay her a "special " visit after Christmas and that it was a secret. (SMF ¶ 124; PSMF ¶ 124.) The person who may have said this to JonBenet has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 125; PSMF ¶ 125.) jameson's comment - this may be the reason the grand jury found the Ramseys could be held responsible for placing JOnBenet in harm's way. Involvement in pageants was something that shocked many and gave them a handle to hang guilt on. It was used by the media to demonize the parents. But we can't know what the gj was thinking when they signed those papers. Wish the entire report was public. Hell, I know of one gj report that was made public and served justice well. Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley - - I think it would be fairly easy to find. She was lying, he supported her and made the case a HUGE one - and it all blew up later record when the entire GJ report was released. Anyway, I hope the entire GJ is one day released. Lots of leads in there that could help solve this. If nothing else it would expose a lot of lies and liars.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #8)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit, who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of the intruder theory. (SMF ¶ 168; PSMF ¶ 168.) Detective Smit has reviewed the evidence and prepared a comprehensive CD presentation that summarizes this evidence and offers the inferences that can be logically drawn from that evidence. From a review of this evidence, Detective Smit believes that JonBenet was subdued by a stun gun, taken from her bedroom by an unknown intruder, and then sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered by this intruder in the basement of the defendants' home in Boulder, Colorado. (SMF ¶ 3; PSMF ¶ 3.) Detective [253 F.Supp.2d 1358] Smit's conclusion as to the cause and timing of JonBenet's pre-mortem injuries is shared by defendants' expert, the coroner of Arapahoe County, Colorado, Dr. Michael Doberson. (SMF ¶ 4; PSMF ¶ 4.) Although most of Detective Smit's conclusions derive from his analysis of physical evidence, he has also testified that he has been unable to find any motive for defendants to murder their daughter. (Smit. Dep. at 146.) Absent from the defendants' family history is any evidence of criminal conduct, sexual abuse, drug or alcohol abuse or violent behavior. (SMF ¶¶ 117-119; PSMF ¶ 117-11 there was no evidence that JonBenet's bed was wet on the night of her murder. (Smit Dep. at 145.)37 - jameson's comment - if you read Thomas' deposition, he also admits he never found any evidence of neglect, abuse or mental illness in the family. He just couldn't accept those findings and decided Patsy just flipped once in her life for a couple hours, killed JOnBenet and then just lived with it with no serious problems. A remarkable woman, that Patsy. Interesting reading, the Vanity Fair article followed by Brill's Content story, JonBenet, Inc. Good insight into Thomas.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #7)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

On the stun gun: Finally, defendants note the existence of evidence that they contend establishes, almost to a certainty, that JonBenet was taken from her bedroom and held against her will by an intruder. Specifically, defendants point to evidence from the autopsy report indicating that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. (SMF ¶ 140.) Because it is logical to assume that JonBenet would struggle against an attacker she did not already know, the use of a stun gun helps to explain why no evidence of a struggle was found in any of the bedrooms in defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 143; PSMF ¶ 143.) Further, defendants state that they have never owned nor operated a stun gun. (SMF K 142.) In addition, no stun gun was ever located at defendants' home nor is there any evidence that defendants have ever owned such a gun. Further, the parties agree that a stun gun could be used and not heard in other rooms of a house. (SMF 1f 141; PSMF ¶ 140-141.) Plaintiff does not agree that a stun gun was used, however, arguing that the evidence establishing the same is inconclusive. Yet, although plaintiff disputes that a stun gun was used in the murder, he has failed to produce any evidence to suggest what caused the burn like marks on Jon-Benet. Specifically, defendants have presented photographs of JonBenet taken Christmas morning that clearly reveal the absence of any marks on her neck. (See Defs.' Ex. 33 attach. To Summ. J. Mot. [68].) Yet, the autopsy report clearly shows reddish, burn-type marks on Jon-Benet's neck and back. (See Autopsy Photos attach, as Defs.' Ex. 27-30 to Smit. Dep.) Moreover, defendants have presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach, as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A.) Defendants' evidence that a stun gun was used, then, stands unrebutted. In other words, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that creates a material dispute of fact on this point or that offers an alternative explanation for the origin of these marks, other than a stun gun. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the undisputed facts indicate that a stun gun was used in the commission of the murder.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #6)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF ¶¶ 151-152; PSMF ¶¶ 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF ¶ 153; PSMF ¶ 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF ¶ 155; PSMF ¶ 155.) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 154, 155; PSMF ¶ 154, 155.) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF ¶ 56; PSMF ¶ 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 156; PSMF ¶ 156.) Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palmprint is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area. The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA—which does not match that of any Ramsey—was found under JonBenet's fingernails.36 (SMF ¶¶ 173-174, 177; PSMF ¶ 73, 177.) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. (SMF ¶ 175; PSMF ¶ 175.) Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not [253 F.Supp.2d 1357] matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF ¶ 179-180; PSMF ¶ 179-180.) As noted, some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina. Thus, given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male—as well as no DNA from any Ramsey—the defendants argue that the inference of an intruder becomes almost insurmountable. As to the above described evidence, plaintiff offers no explanation consistent with his theory of the crime. jameson's comment - - Clearly, the judge is saying Steve Thomas' book, the basis of Wolf's suit, just doesn't work because it doesn't address the exculpatory evidence. The evidence points to an intruder. But THomas and all othre BORG just toss out any puzzle pieces that don't suit them. The judge did justice a favor here by including these undisputed facts in her decision.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #5)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

The above evidence arguably suggests that whoever tied up JonBenet used some items brought from outside the home to do so. In addition, other fiber evidence supports an inference that some of these items from outside the home were, at one time, in the second floor area near Jon-Benet's bedroom. That is, fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF ¶ 168; PSMF ¶ 168.) This evidence is inconsistent with plaintiffs proposed timeline of events. That is, plaintiff has hypothesized that Mrs. Ramsey, in a moment of anger, had [253 F.Supp.2d 1356] hit JonBenet's head against something hard in the second floor bathroom, thereby rendering her child unconscious, and then spent the rest of the night staging an elaborate kidnapping and torture scenario in the basement. Discovery of cord fibers, used to tie JonBenet's hands, in the latter's bedroom arguably undermines plaintiffs sequence of events. Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming " of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet.35 jameson's comment - I remember the BORG anxiously awaiting their hero Steve Thomas' book to be released. I remember when they read it, they grew quiet for a bit because even they could see how little sense his theory made. He was insisting his theory was right and those who had really studied everything knew he was just..... WRONG. Some, like Candy, fought so hard to keep believing and sent money so he could defend his book. It was sad to see their hero fall, and confusing to see them pick up and carry on despite the truth that was coming out. Had they been told the first week that there was foreign DNA under JOnBenet's nails, mixed with her blood in her panties, then the posters who ended up BORG to the bone would never have taken that path. I don't understand why they can't admit now that they were simply led donw the wrong path, made a mistake. But some people just can't.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #4)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

Carnes: Defendants further aver that the undisputed physical evidence is not consistent with an "accidental killing followed by staging," (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67]), but instead is more consistent with a theory that the intruder subdued JonBenet in her bedroom and then took her to the basement, where she was sexually assaulted and subsequently murdered. First, JonBenet's body was found bound with complicated and sophisticated bondage devices, namely neatly-made rope slipknots and a garrotte, designed to give control to the user. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19; SMF ¶¶ 161, 163-164; PSMF ¶¶ 161, 163-164.) The parties agree that such devices necessarily were made by someone with expertise in bondage. (SMF ¶¶ 162, 169; PSMF ¶¶ 162, 169.) While it is certainly possible that defendants33 possessed such unusual and specialized skills, there is no evidence that establishes this fact. Obviously, if defendants lacked the skills to fashion this bondage device, then it necessarily had to be an intruder who crafted the implement. Further, the end portion of the paintbrush and the cord used to construct the garrote were never found in the house, or elsewhere, nor was the latter sourced to defendants.34 (SMF ¶ 59; PSMF ¶ 59.) (SMF ¶ 62; PSMF ¶ 62.) The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also never been sourced to defendants. (SMF ¶ 70; PSMF ¶ 70.) Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF ¶ 83; PSMF ¶ 83.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF ¶ 83; PSMF ¶ 83.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 84; PSMF ¶ 84.) jameson's comment - just note the items that an intruder could or did carry in - things the LE could never link to the parents. The BORG, and sometimes tabloids, said they identified the hair, palmprints, fibers, bootprints.... but here in 2003 we have a federal judge basing her opinion on undisputed facts and depositions - - not BORG rhetoric. These unsourced items could still be used to identify the killer.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #3)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF ¶ 132; PSMF ¶ 132.) In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF ¶ 135; PSMF ¶ 135.)32 Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF ¶ 131; PSMF ¶ 131.) Further, the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF ¶ 133; PSMF ¶ 133.) Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF ¶ 136; PSMF ¶ 136.) Likewise, a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF ¶ 134; PSMF ¶ 134.) This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the winecellar room at some point. Certain undisputed evidence of how defendants' house was found on the morning of December 26 is also consistent with the intruder theory of the crime. For example, the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF ¶ 129; PSMF ¶ 129.) In addition, the butler's door to the kitchen [253 F.Supp.2d 1355] was found ajar that morning. (SMF ¶ 137; PSMF ¶ 37.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF ¶ 138; PSMF ¶ 138.) Moreover, contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of a "footprint in the snow," there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to defendants' home on the morning of December 26, 1996. (SMF ¶ 39; PSMF ¶ 139.) Hence, a person walking along these paths would have left no footprints. jameson's comment - - no matter what the BORG says, this judge was given access to all kinds of evidence from all sides, the police chief and others were deposed and touched on all of these subjects - - and she makes it clear there WAS evidence of possible entry at the broken basement window. Could be someone was just having fun picking up window grates and ould be he didn't swipe the window ledge with his butt as he slid in - maybe he was just trying to help the Ramseys clean up the popcorn packing materials in there and just blew it in the house, through two rooms and down more than one hall into that wine cellar. Nah, the judge found that window a likely entry point and the butler's pantry the way he got out. Remember, the unclaimed bat with fibers from the basement on it was found on that side of the house. Interesting? i think so.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #2)

JonBenet Ramsey

carnes thread 4 - evidence of intruder

Evidence in Federal Judge Carnes' decision was not based on any book but on thousands of pages of testimony given in depositions as well as information she asked for and received from many sources, LE and witnesses. The woman takes her job seriously and I don't believe she is considered less than most honourable. She wasn't in anyone's pocket. OK, I have not been a strong presence on the internet for years, my absence was deliberate and this return will be temporary. But while I am here I do intend to share this document because I don't think it should be ignored. Flamers will be ignored as I expect readers to know better than to put much stock in their lies that are not supported by depositions and legal decisions. Back to the thread... Carnes:3. Evidence in Support of the Intruder Theory Defendants assert that the evidence establishes that Mrs. Ramsey did not murder her daughter JonBenet. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 18.) Specifically, defendants note that: [a]fter a half-decade investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, and year-long grand jury investigation, no plausible evidence proves Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with the murder of her child. Every prosecutor to examine this case agreed that no charge or crime should have been brought against [defendants]. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19-20; see also SMF ¶¶ 85, 91-93; PSMF ¶¶ 185; 91-93.) Defendants contend that evidence gathered in the investigation of JonBenet's death instead shows that she was abducted, sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered by an intruder. (Id.) [253 F.Supp.2d 1354] As Andrew Louis Smit, a respected homicide detective hired by the Boulder Police Department to investigate this crime, has noted, there are only two possible solutions to this crime: that is, either someone in the Ramsey household committed the crime or an intruder did it. (Smit Dep. at 54.) Defendants contend that the weight of the undisputed evidence in the case is consistent with an inference that an intruder killed their child. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J.[67] at 19-20.) The first questions then are whether an intruder could have entered the home and, if so, is there evidence that an intruder, in fact, entered the home on the date of the murder. Defendants respond that the undisputed evidence supplies an answer of "yes" to both questions. First, defendants have indicated that their house was not secure during the night of December 25, 1997, and that they had not turned their security alarm on. (SMF ¶ 127; PSMF ¶ 127.) In addition, at least seven windows and one door were found "open"31 on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF ¶ 126; PSMF ¶ 126.) A number of windows were accessible from the ground level, including a window-well, with removable grate, over three windows that opened into a playroom area of the basement. (SMF ¶ 128; PSMF ¶ 128.) This windowwell is located on the back side of the house, hidden from the front of the house and from neighbors. (SMF ¶ 130; PSMF ¶ 130.) jameson comment - Let me pull out that important quote, and remember, this was from 2003, years after the grand jury ended. "no plausible evidence proves Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with the murder of her child. Every prosecutor to examine this case agreed that no charge or crime should have been brought against [defendants]. " This was the judge's statement and she had read depositions of the prosecutors. She didn't make this stuff or just take someone's word for it - - it was found in depositions. Some are sealed but others are public. And we know Alex Hunter announced to all of us - there was no evidence found sufficient to indict anyone in this case. He knew the evidnece and sat through all the presentations, followed the grand jury and he KNEW how wrong it would have been to lynch the parents.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #1)

JonBenet Ramsey

Carnes decision thread 3 - the ransom note

sorry,but in this case they always used the 1 to 5 scale. PLease do look in the archives, the interviews of DA Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, look at the TV interviews and you will find that was the scale always used here. I admit, it used to confuse me too, why not 1 to 10? But in Chief Beckner's deposition, he also used 1 to 5. Don't take my word for it, all this can be verified if you just look up old posts, interviews, depositions. Moving on in the Carnes decision, Cina Wong was not acceptable as an expert and Epstein had problems because he only had copies of the note and Patsy's handwriting. Their work for Darnay Hoffman wasn't impressive when ccepted experts who DID have access to all theactual case evidence said Patsy probably did NOT write the note.  (Jan 26, 2014 | post #12)

JonBenet Ramsey

"Innocent People were not cleared"

LOL- this man who left the case in 1998 after being a source for Louise Ann Bardach, Jeff Shapiro and others.... who you said cowardly settled his lawsuit rather than defend his book of lies...... HIS resignation letter is worthy of your reposting... but in your opinion Federal judge Julie Carnes decision is not worth discussion???? this is just so darn CUTE!!! OK, I'm off for the night. Just had to visit a bit to remember just how pathetic the BORG party really is. bye  (Jan 25, 2014 | post #2)

JonBenet Ramsey

Carnes decision thread 2 - JonBenet's body

Enough for today. I am not really interested in the issue of the Ramseys being sued by Wolf for slander - they wrote about their experiences and they were honest. Jackie called Pam and told her about Chris and he was investigated. The point of carrying over the decision is to discuss the FACTS, the undisputed FACTS of the case. THere is discussion of evidence in the decision, it tells us what unsourced evidence remains that could help identify the killer. Someone out there knows the killer, may have access to handwriting from 1996, could have access to his DNA. flaming me doesn't make this a better forum, it just shows your nastiness. I hoped to start some case discussion. Will add more another time. Just to let the openminded and newbies have something real to think about.  (Jan 25, 2014 | post #9)

JonBenet Ramsey

Federal Judge Julie Carnes' decision Thread 1

the most interesting thing about the Wolf lawsuit is all those depositions that revealed so many facts. Chief Beckner was deposed, as was Lou Smit, as was Fleet White. Being BORG, I expect you to fight this, but why not let the Federal Judge's ruling speak for itself, OK? The posters here can judge for themselves how educated or uneducated the judge was.  (Jan 25, 2014 | post #16)

JonBenet Ramsey

Carnes decision thread 3 - the ransom note

On November 14, 1997, Mr. Hoffman filed a Complaint in the District Court for Boulder County, Colorado, on his own behalf as a plaintiff, asking that Mr. Hunter be forced to explain why he had not filed murder charges against Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 344; PSMF ¶ 344.) Attached to the Complaint was the affidavit of Ms. Wong who, notwithstanding her earlier overture to the Ramseys, now claimed that Mrs. Ramsey had written the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 345; PSMF ¶ 345.) Mr. Hoffman's complaint was dismissed on January 20, 1998. (SMF ¶ 346; PSMF ¶ 346.) In March 2000, Mr. Hoffman again filed suit, again on his own behalf as plaintiff, against defendants in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, for $25,000,000 in damages based on the allegation that he was defamed by certain passages in the defendants' Book. (SMF ¶ 353; PSMF ¶ 353.) On April 21, 2000, Mr. Hoffman dismissed this complaint. (SMF ¶ 354; PSMF ¶ 354.) In addition, Mr. Hoffman has served as a long time source to news tabloids for information about the investigation. (See, e.g., John Latta, "JonBenet's Dad Was Framedby Mom, say insiders,") NATIONAL EXAMINER, June 24, 1997 (insider referred to is Mr. Hoffman); Art Dworkin, "Jon-Benet's Dad Lied Under Oath to Hide Death Fight," NATIONAL EXAMINER dated March 7, 2000 (quoting Mr. Hoffman's comments about Mr. Ramsey's deposition testimony); Art Dworkin, "Five Years Later JonBenet Parents Are Doing Little To Find Killer," NATIONAL EXAMINER, December 11, 2001 (quoting Mr. Hoffman as stating, among other things, that defendants "JUST DON'T CARE" about their daughter's murder investigation.)20  (Jan 25, 2014 | post #10)

JonBenet Ramsey

Carnes decision thread 3 - the ransom note

Starting on Darnay Hoffman's involvement and the credibility of certain witnesses: "Plaintiffs counsel Darnay Hoffman also became interested in the case early in the murder investigation and has contributed to the continued media interest through the filing of various lawsuits. In March 1997, Mr. Hoffman sent a letter to the Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter suggesting that Charles Lindbergh had killed his child in a hoax kidnapping and that one of the defendants had killed JonBenet in a similar type hoax. (SMF ¶ 339; PSMF ¶ 339.) In May 1997, Mr. Hoffman sent Mr. Hunter a second letter in which Mr. Hoffman theorized that Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter, through a blow to the head, in a fit of rage caused by unhappiness, depression and marital problems. (SMF ¶ 340; PSMF ¶ 340.) The Boulder authorities did not take Mr. Hoffman's unsubstantiated theories seriously and considered much of his submissions to be "off the wall." (SMF ¶ 341; PSMF ¶ 341.) In the fall of 1997 Mr. Hoffman began to solicit the involvement of various handwriting experts, claiming that, although prior expert reports given to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation showed Mrs. Ramsey to be at the "very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e. there is little or no basis for a match," it would be a "career move" for an expert to submit an affidavit for use by Mr. Hoffman. (SMF ¶ 343; PSMF ¶ 343.) Indeed, forensic document examiners were eager to jump into the high-profile investigation. In July 1997, Ms. Wong, now plaintiffs expert, had originally contacted defendants' attorneys and offered to analyze the Ransom Note and point out weaknesses in analysis by "Government handwriting experts." (SMF ¶ 342; PSMF ¶ 342.) Defendants declined such an offer. [253 F.Supp.2d 1340] In September 1998, Ms. Wong wrote District Attorney Hunter, Assistant District Attorney Michael Kane, and Judge Roxanne Bailin, asking to testify before the Grand Jury. (SMF ¶ 347; PSMF ¶ 347.) By letter dated January 20, 1999, Mr. Hunter rejected the request, informing Ms. Wong that it was his opinion that she did not use scientifically reliable methods, her testimony would be inadmissible, and that she lacked credibility. (SMF ¶ 348; PSMF ¶ 348.) In addition, Mr. Epstein, defendants' other handwriting expert, also wrote to Mr. Hunter, at sometime before the end of 2000, to offer his assistance in examining the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 349; PSMF ¶ 349.) Mr. Hunter did not take Mr. Epstein up on his offer, either. (SMF ¶ 349; PSMF ¶349.)" jameson's comment - - this is an important part of the Ramsey case story, it shows how people grabbed a chance to make a career move. I got hold of Darnay's letter to that handwriting "expert" , published it online and that is how I met Darnay. There were lots of, well, let me call them "questionable " experts in this case. Most stories documented in one way or another. Dale Yeager exposed himself on a radio program put together by Lance Matthews and Lisa Flowers. Others just put out outrageous interviews and outted themselves that way. It was a crazy time, let me tell you. Crazy.  (Jan 25, 2014 | post #9)